[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
It seems a funny coincidence that every single person I have ever met who is pro-draft is way too old to be drafted.
[/QUOTE]
I’m anti-draft because I’m 20 and my birthday is in January. Fuck no.
[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
I don’t know if you’ve ever spent much time in Israel talking to the IDF troops. I’m going to assume you haven’t, because if you had, you would know that the comparison is absurd and that would make you intellectually dishonest or intentionally misleading, a label I’m not prepared to stick to you.
Israeli Jewish culture, vis a vis military service, is so incredibly different from ours that they’re not even comparable. Keep in mind, by the way, that compulsory military service in Israel applies only to Jews and other (small) Semitic groups who have decided as a community to send their young men and women to the front lines, like the Druze. (Yes, men and women.) Israel is a place where every 18-year-old Jewish citizen knows at least one close friend or family member who has died in a terrorist or military attack, and probably more. Israel is a place where a constant, rigid, violent defense is required to ensure the nation’s very existence on a day-to-day basis. To compare Israel and the United States in this fashion is utterly absurd.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I have. Well, not “much”, but I’ve met several Israelis who’ve put in their time.
I’m 26. I am not “pro-draft”, which suggests that I’m in favor of a “random” system of conscription. I think that compulsory military service for all citizens of a certain age- say, two years- is a good idea, though.
I didn’t compare the two to make any sort of point about the popularity of conscription. I only brought up the IDF in response to Steve MB’s assertion that conscripted armies can’t wage war effectively.
[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
…It seems a funny coincidence that every single person I have ever met who is pro-draft is way too old to be drafted.
[/QUOTE]
Ummm… older but wiser?
The only supporter of “the” draft whose wisdom has ever impressed me was a college professor who believed that the draft should have a mechanism for conscientious objectors (that is, most of its subjects) to serve in the Peace Corps or a comparable domestic service instead of the military. As a campaign staffer, I run into a lot of people with all kinds of different opinions every day, and so far everyone else who’s pro-draft struck me as massively ignorant before they even mentioned the issue. YMMV.
ETA: Sorry, that professor was a proponent of compulsory service, not selective service. If you’re talking about selective service, I have yet to be impressed by the wisdom of anyone who supports it, on that issue or otherwise. Wisdom isn’t free, and not everyone who lives long enough makes an effort to come by it.
I apologize. You’re correct that the linguistic distinction here is an important one and I assure you that I did not intend to lump you in with a less extreme position. However, I still maintain that your IDF analogy can be filed in the “apples to oranges” department.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I think that compulsory military service for all citizens of a certain age- say, two years- is a good idea, though.
[/QUOTE]
You want to draft two year olds?! Dude, that’s fucked up!
[QUOTE=Miller]
You want to draft two year olds?! Dude, that’s fucked up!
[/QUOTE]
“Awww, look at the baby! Coochie coochie c… he’s got a gun! Fuck!”
[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
However, I still maintain that your IDF analogy can be filed in the “apples to oranges” department.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Are you saying the IDF is particularly effective because they’re more motivated than other conscript armies?
[QUOTE=Miller]
You want to draft two year olds?! Dude, that’s fucked up!
[/QUOTE]
Well, by and large that’s generally how many politicians act.
I’m no expert on the conscript armies of the world; nor, for that matter, am I an expert on the IDF. What I do know is that the cultures of Jewish Israel the United States, especially when it comes to the military, are so different as to be completely incomparable. Motivation is an abstract concept, but here’s some real shit for you: my impression from spending some time over there and talking to Israeli paratroopers is that probably every Israeli soldier, or almost every Israeli soldier, has seen a close friend or family member die in battle or in a terrorist incident. And, to repeat the central point one more time, every Israeli old enough to understand international politics knows that the nation’s very existence on a day-to-day level depends on the ferocity and the effectiveness of its defense force. These things are simply not true in the United States, which has seen all of one (1) nationally significant terrorist attack in this decade and has not been attacked on the home front in some 60 years or so.
[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
I’m no expert on the conscript armies of the world; nor, for that matter, am I an expert on the IDF. What I do know is that the cultures of Jewish Israel the United States, especially when it comes to the military, are so different as to be completely incomparable.
[/QUOTE]
Well, sure, but we’re not comparing cultures. All we need to know is whether conscription makes for an effective military, and even if you leave Israel out of the conversation, the answer is yes.
But that’s the entire point–it’s arguably the cultural difference that makes the IDF effective in the first place. Since we’re all about fighting ignorance here, why don’t you give me some more apt examples of effective conscripted armed forces that are comparable to a similar situation in the US?
Military effectiveness isn’t the only consideration either. Your username aside, I don’t think you’re stupid, so you must be simply overlooking the other considerations, like:
-
The ability of our economy to support the subsidization of housing, education, job training, clothing, transportation, and medical care for every single 18-20-year-old who doesn’t have a debilitating injury
-
The overall decline in mental health and stability that comes with serving in battle, and how much more widespread it might be in our society
-
The reluctance of young Americans to serve in a conscript army and the subsequent effects on their mental and physical health, their unit’s effectiveness and even our national security, which brings us to:
-
The temptation to sabotage our national security, which would undoubtedly be strong for a young bohemian who despises the way we use our military around the world
I’m sure there are more that I haven’t thought of, anyway. It’s a complex issue and the attempts of some to handwave it away with simple explanations are disheartening.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Well, sure, but we’re not comparing cultures. All we need to know is whether conscription makes for an effective military, and even if you leave Israel out of the conversation, the answer is yes.
[/QUOTE]
I’d have to agree, though it’s certainly debatable whether a voluntary army is more or less efficient, as opposed to effective.
I’m somewhat ashamed to realize how little I know of military history, as I can’t really say whether various armies throughout the ages have been voluntary or not.
I’m pretty sure that the British entered WWI with a voluntary army but had to go to conscription. I’m pretty sure the Russians were conscripts. I can’t say either way about the French or the Germans, but my assumption is that every army was based on conscription.
Does someone know more about today’s European armies? I’m thinking some of them are based on universal rather than selective service. I dunno which might be all volunteer.
[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
Military effectiveness isn’t the only consideration either. Your username aside, I don’t think you’re stupid, so you must be simply overlooking the other considerations, like:
-
The ability of our economy to support the subsidization of housing, education, job training, clothing, transportation, and medical care for every single 18-20-year-old who doesn’t have a debilitating injury
-
The overall decline in mental health and stability that comes with serving in battle, and how much more widespread it might be in our society
-
The reluctance of young Americans to serve in a conscript army and the subsequent effects on their mental and physical health, their unit’s effectiveness and even our national security, which brings us to:
-
The temptation to sabotage our national security, which would undoubtedly be strong for a young bohemian who despises the way we use our military around the world
I’m sure there are more that I haven’t thought of, anyway. It’s a complex issue and the attempts of some to handwave it away with simple explanations are disheartening.
[/QUOTE]
I was overlooking those, but not unreasonably; conscription has been a way of life in many countries right up to the present day, all of which have had to deal with the issues you mention.
-we already subsidize those things for a significant percentage of all 18-20 year olds. They’re called college students. Anyway, the huge reduction that compulsory service would entail in spending on our conventional forces (obviously, you wouldn’t chuck out career service, but our enlisted forces would be perhaps 10% of their current size) would offset the cost. Beyond that, the number of 18-20 year old people in America is not significantly greater than the number of military personnel. 5-7 million to 1-4 million, give or take- and the conscripted army doesn’t have to receive pension benefits.
-There’s no reason that all those kids would be sent off to battle. The majority of our military engagements (Iraq notwithstanding) are handled by a relatively small fraction of the US military as a whole. The psychological effects would affect no more soldiers than they do now. Remember, the military is already being transitioned from a Cold War footing to a small-engagement readiness status.
-sensitive and/or technical assignments would still be handled by career military personnel. There’s not much your young bohemian can do to damage our national security short of shooting his squadmates. Anyway, there would naturally have to be some sort of exception made for conscientious or religious objectors; civil public service, the Peace Corps, medical units, etc.
It is a complex issue, and it’s not as though I’m saying, “I’ve worked out all the problems, so let’s get this draft thing going”. We’re talking about 10 years’ worth of studies, not to mention the politicking that would have to go on. Absent a serious national security crisis, like a series of new 9/11s or another conventional military engagement it just isn’t going to happen.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I only brought up the IDF in response to Steve MB’s assertion that conscripted armies can’t wage war effectively.
[/QUOTE]
There is no such assertion. I noted the known fact that a professional force is, for obvious reasons, more effective than a randomly selected hodgepodge.
You could dispute that, but you’d be in the position of asserting that those smarty-pants generals don’t know as much about the military as you do, which is about as credible as asserting that those smarty-pants physicists don’t know as much as you do about the functionality of perpetual motion machines.
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
I used to believe this but no longer. I believe that a universal draft might prevent some wars, and shorten others. The more young people from all walks of society whose lives are threatened in an unjust war, the more likely it is that the populace will force an end to it sooner.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. When politicians can simply override public opinion by coercion, it takes many years for public opposition to force the end of an unpopular war (e.g. Vietnam, from about 1966 to 1973). Maintaining an all-volunteer army for that long in the face of widespread lack of willingness to volunteer would have been quite impossible, and thus forced an earlier end.
[QUOTE=Steve MB]
There is no such assertion. I noted the known fact that a professional force is, for obvious reasons, more effective than a randomly selected hodgepodge.
[/QUOTE]
If I may butt in…
That’s only if your conscription military is, indeed, a randomly selected hodgepodge. I don’t know how the U.S. militaray used to do things, but the IDF has an entire corps, thousands of troops, whose sole job is to make sure that the right recruit gets the right position. They’ve pretty much got it down to a science.
You’re also making the assumption that people who volunteer for militray service are, a priori, those most fit for military service. I’m not sure that’s entirely true. If I felt like being nasty, I’d say that those dumb enough to join the military of their own free will are probably too dumb to be really good soldiers (present company excluded, of course).
[QUOTE=Alessan]
You’re also making the assumption that people who volunteer for militray service are, a priori, those most fit for military service.
[/QUOTE]
The only assumption I’m making is that multi-star generals know more about this stuff than some guy on the Internet. I don’t lose much sleep worrying that I might be wrong.
Also, as noted above, the theory that conscription meaningfully limits the ability of politicians to pursue unpopular wars ought to be inscribed on the Wall, because it died in Vietnam. The crowning proof is that the politicians didn’t even try to re-escalate the war after the switch to an all-volunteer force (even though it would have been easy for them to do so, if Boyo Jim’s theory had any validity).
[QUOTE=Steve MB]
The only assumption I’m making is that multi-star generals know more about this stuff than some guy on the Internet. I don’t lose much sleep worrying that I might be wrong.
[/QUOTE]
And I know of several generals who are quite pro-draft. Or do only U.S. generals count?
The fact of the matter is, the draft was cancelled for political reasons, not military ones. If your generals say that your military is better now, well, what else would they say?
[QUOTE=Steve MB]
There is no such assertion. I noted the known fact that a professional force is, for obvious reasons, more effective than a randomly selected hodgepodge.
You could dispute that, but you’d be in the position of asserting that those smarty-pants generals don’t know as much about the military as you do, which is about as credible as asserting that those smarty-pants physicists don’t know as much as you do about the functionality of perpetual motion machines.
[/QUOTE]
“Known fact”, eh? Known by whom? Apparently the Russians don’t know. Nor do the Israelis. Or the Germans. In fact, no country which played a major role in hostilities in WWII did.
And what are these “obvious reasons”? And who are “those smarty- pants generals”? The same ones who couldn’t win the Vietnam War and may not win the Iraq War despite overwhelmingly superior troops, equipment and funding?
[QUOTE=SteveMB]
The crowning proof is that the politicians didn’t even try to re-escalate the war after the switch to an all-volunteer force (even though it would have been easy for them to do so, if Boyo Jim’s theory had any validity).
[/QUOTE]
Uh… no it isn’t.
The politicians didn’t try to reescalate the war because it had already cost LBJ his job and neither Nixon nor Ford was stupid enough to make the same mistake. In any case, by the time Ford entered office the Democrats were firmly in control of Congress.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
And I know of several generals who are quite pro-draft. Or do only U.S. generals count?
[/quote]
I would look askance at anyone who made a blanket all-purpose generalization that “the draft is always bad” or “the draft is always good” without regard to local politics, the country, the populace, the economy at the time, and the popularity of the proposed war itself. To me the only reasonable answer is “the draft can be a very good tool, but so can volunteerism.”